TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (9) TMI 3
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fences arising from non-compliance with section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Section 269SS of the Act provides that "no person shall take or accept from any other person any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account-payee cheque or account-payee bank draft which exceeds Rs. 10 thousand" (now, Rs. 20 thousand). Punishment for non-compliance with provisions of section 269SS is provided under section 276DD of the Act. In addition, penalty is leviable under section 271D of the Act. Section 276DD has been omitted from the Act by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, with effect from April 1, 1989. A complaint under section 276DD of the Act was filed in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acquired and liabilities incurred during its operation and permit continuance or institution of any legal proceedings or recourse to any remedy available before the repeal for enforcement of the same, it is contended that the offences committed during the continuance of a statute can be prosecuted and punished even after its repeal. Perhaps we would have agreed with this submission of learned counsel, but for the two decisions by the Constitution Benches in Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. Director of Enforcement [1969] 2 SCC 412; [1970] AIR 1970 SC 494 and Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 811; [2000] 2 SCC 536, where there are observations to the effect that an "omission" of a provision is different from a "repea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion, further examination of the same whether it would apply to an omission did not really arise for consideration; that observations in that regard only escaped inadvertently and not after consideration; that "omission" of a provision results in abrogation or obliteration of the omitted provision in the same way as it would have happened in the case of "repeal" ; that a conclusion of law not raised or not preceded by consideration attracts the rule of sub silentio; that any declaration or conclusion arrived at without application of mind preceded without reason cannot be deemed to be declaration of law or authority of a general nature binding as a precedent; that the principle that section 6 of the General Clauses Act is not attracted to "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch it is stated that if any Act repeals any enactment making textual amendment in the Act by express omission, insertion or substitution of any matter, then, unless different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect the continuance of such amendment made by an enactment so repealed and in operation at the time of such repeal; that the use of the words "repeals by express omission, insertion or substitution" will cover different aspects of repeal: that this is a further legislative indication that "omission" also amounts to a "repeal" of an enactment. Though we find the submissions of learned counsel to be forceful, we are constrained to follow the two decisions of the Constitution Benches of this court in Rayala Corporation P. Ltd., ....